 » Site Navigation | | | | » Online Users: 55 | | 12 members and 43 guests | | Backwoods Presbyterian, calgal, Carolyn, JonathanHunt, ReformedTarheel, roblombard, satz, TimV, toddpedlar, Wooster, wturri78 | | Most users ever online was 856, 07-06-2007 at 12:19 AM. | |  | 
12-18-2007, 03:58 PM
|  | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 6,466
Thanks: 1,276
Thanked 644 Times in 462 Posts
| | | Are Reformed Paedobaptists inconsistent?
James White, the contributors to  Believer's Baptism and other antipaedobaptists charge that Reformed paedobaptists are inconsistent in their application of covenant theology. More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. Quite often, even children above a certain age (which of course varies) are not baptized when their family joins the church unless they are professing believers, and extended family members and others who may be in the household are not baptized apart from a credible profession of faith.
What say ye?
__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA
"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt
|
12-18-2007, 05:19 PM
|  | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texarkana (Border of Texas and Arkansas)
Posts: 15,822
Thanks: 1,538
Thanked 1,784 Times in 928 Posts
| |
No. They are not being inconsistent.  | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Joshua For This Useful Post: | |
12-18-2007, 05:33 PM
|  | Moderator | | Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 4,445
Thanks: 329
Thanked 127 Times in 66 Posts
| |
Note that it officially says I thanked Josh for his (exceedingly) "Useful" post.  |
12-18-2007, 05:34 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texarkana (Border of Texas and Arkansas)
Posts: 15,822
Thanks: 1,538
Thanked 1,784 Times in 928 Posts
| | | |
12-18-2007, 05:48 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim  James White, the contributors to Believer's Baptism and other antipaedobaptists charge that Reformed paedobaptists are inconsistent in their application of covenant theology. More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. Quite often, even children above a certain age (which of course varies) are not baptized when their family joins the church unless they are professing believers, and extended family members and others who may be in the household are not baptized apart from a credible profession of faith.
What say ye? | Sound like a bit of a straw-man; paedo-baptists believe that the covenant of grace is made with us and our offspring, not out servants. This can be seen by the fact that Abraham was specifically told to circumcise his servants, but the covenant was not made "between me and you, and you servants". Even if Dr. White is correct, how does this prove infant baptism is wrong?
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|
12-18-2007, 05:48 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Me Died Blue Note that it officially says I thanked Josh for his (exceedingly) "Useful" post. | Now that's sarcasm. 
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|
12-18-2007, 06:01 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Statesboro, GA
Posts: 287
Thanks: 87
Thanked 30 Times in 20 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua No. They are not being inconsistent. | 
__________________
~Gloria G.~
Bride of Warren G.
Member of Trinity Presbyterian Church, PCA, Southeast Georgia
"Turn my eyes from looking at worthless things; and give me life in your ways." Psalm 119:37
|
12-18-2007, 06:09 PM
|  | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,265
Thanks: 707
Thanked 573 Times in 379 Posts
| | |
Well, as long as the individual doesn't refuse to be baptized I don't see why other members of households aren't baptized these days. When I was studying the baptism issue I found it helpful that Bill Shishko used the term "oikobaptism" (household baptism) instead of "paedobaptism." It may be one way to keep the Baptist from chanting the "There is no mention of baptizing infants in the New Testament." Well, okay, there aren't, but there is mention of "households" and "families" being baptized. And this is the language of the rite of circumcision in the OT; it included infants.
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
|
12-18-2007, 06:51 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 6,466
Thanks: 1,276
Thanked 644 Times in 462 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by joshua No. They are not being inconsistent. | Why not?
__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA
"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt
|
12-18-2007, 06:51 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 6,466
Thanks: 1,276
Thanked 644 Times in 462 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Me Died Blue Note that it officially says I thanked Josh for his (exceedingly) "Useful" post. | 
__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA
"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt
|
12-18-2007, 07:01 PM
|  | Puritanboard Graduate | | Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Wytheville, Virginia
Posts: 3,011
Thanks: 804
Thanked 327 Times in 259 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist Well, as long as the individual doesn't refuse to be baptized I don't see why other members of households aren't baptized these days. When I was studying the baptism issue I found it helpful that Bill Shishko used the term "oikobaptism" (household baptism) instead of "paedobaptism." It may be one way to keep the Baptist from chanting the "There is no mention of baptizing infants in the New Testament." Well, okay, there aren't, but there is mention of "households" and "families" being baptized. And this is the language of the rite of circumcision in the OT; it included infants. | Hmmmmm.  Very interesting. Do you have a link to this information or care to share where it is found?
__________________ ~James Helbert~, Wytheville, VA
Providence Reformed Presbyterian Church, RPCUS TheBibleAlone.com / The Edinburgh Inn "Is this not a brand plucked from the fire?” - Zechariah 3:2 |
12-18-2007, 07:04 PM
| | Puritanboard Postgraduate | | Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 4,265
Thanks: 707
Thanked 573 Times in 379 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Southern Presbyterian Quote:
Originally Posted by CarolinaCalvinist Well, as long as the individual doesn't refuse to be baptized I don't see why other members of households aren't baptized these days. When I was studying the baptism issue I found it helpful that Bill Shishko used the term "oikobaptism" (household baptism) instead of "paedobaptism." It may be one way to keep the Baptist from chanting the "There is no mention of baptizing infants in the New Testament." Well, okay, there aren't, but there is mention of "households" and "families" being baptized. And this is the language of the rite of circumcision in the OT; it included infants. | Hmmmmm. Very interesting. Do you have a link to this information or care to share where it is found? | Which information?
__________________
Davidius
Husband of Emilia
Member: First Reformed Presbyterian Church of Durham (RPCNA) - Durham, NC
Currently in the process of transferring membership to an as-yet-undecided church in Chapel Hill
Student: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, German Literature and Classics
|
12-18-2007, 07:05 PM
|  | Puritanboard Sophomore | | Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Bradenton, FL
Posts: 935
Thanks: 307
Thanked 186 Times in 109 Posts
| |
You can dl The White / Shishko debate here
__________________
Steve Butts - Former SBC-er
Three Forms of Unity - Bradenton CRC - Bradenton, Florida
(A conservative member in a conservative congregation)
"Of two evils, choose neither." — C.H. Spurgeon |
12-18-2007, 07:11 PM
| | Administrator | | Join Date: May 2003 Location: Texarkana (Border of Texas and Arkansas)
Posts: 15,822
Thanks: 1,538
Thanked 1,784 Times in 928 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim Why not? | Sometimes...on Thursdays.
|
12-18-2007, 07:13 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: Mandeville, LA
Posts: 6,466
Thanks: 1,276
Thanked 644 Times in 462 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Seb You can dl The White / Shishko debate here | See also Rev. Shishko's messages on baptism here.
__________________
Chris Poe
Mandeville, LA
"There are the foolish fanatics always to be found in such a movement and always discrediting it--the lunatic fringe in all reform movements." Theodore Roosevelt
|
12-18-2007, 07:33 PM
|  | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southern California
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. | One thought that I have long held is that only males were circumcised under the Old Covenant to my knowledge, whereas baptism today is administered by paedobaptists to both males and females under the New. Assuming there is a theological connection between circumcision and paedobaptism, I am forced to wonder, Why the inconsistency of application?
|
12-18-2007, 07:37 PM
|  | "da wabbit" | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 3,928
Thanks: 12
Thanked 1,189 Times in 449 Posts
| | |
Does JW (bless him) think that Abraham pulled out the knife, and with a crazy grin and an odd gleam in his eye said: "Whip it out boys, and lay it on the table--it'll only hurt for .. a couple days. Trust me!"
Please. How about Gen. 17:14, " Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."
Here's what he probably said: "OK, you don't believe what I preach here, the truth I proclaimed to you back in Ur when I brought you out with me? Why did you consent to leave? If you believe, then I'm cutting ME first, then you, as God commanded. If you refuse to be cut, then you are "cut off", goodbye. See ya. We have some parting gifts for you at the door."
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer
Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? -- | | The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Contra_Mundum For This Useful Post: | |
12-18-2007, 07:38 PM
| | "da wabbit" | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 3,928
Thanks: 12
Thanked 1,189 Times in 449 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RRHeustisJr Quote:
Originally Posted by Pilgrim More specifically, it is argued that in the Old Covenant economy, every man under the authority of the head of household was circumcised, including extended family members, servants, etc. However this is not the case in Reformed paedobaptist churches, where only infants and small children of believers are baptized apart from a credible profession of faith. | One thought that I have long held is that only males were circumcised under the Old Covenant to my knowledge, whereas baptism today is administered by paedobaptists to both males and females under the New. Assuming there is a theological connection between circumcision and paedobaptism, I am forced to wonder, Why the inconsistency of application? | How about Gal 3:28?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer
Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us. --Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? -- |
12-18-2007, 07:50 PM
| | Puritanboard Freshman | | Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Southern California
Posts: 9
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
| |
Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
How about Gal 3:28?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
| Exactly.
But, does this mean that females were not part of the Covenant in the Old, but now they are, according to Paedobaptist theology? If Galatians 3:28 is used to bolster Paedobaptism, then are we to believe that females were treated just like the Greek in the Old, which is why females (and Greeks) were not circumcised?
|
12-18-2007, 08:00 PM
| | Puritanboard Doctor | | Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Saintfield, Co. Down, Northern Ireland
Posts: 6,568
Thanks: 2,062
Thanked 1,124 Times in 740 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum Does JW (bless him) think that Abraham pulled out the knife, and with a crazy grin and an odd gleam in his eye said: "Whip it out boys, and lay it on the table--it'll only hurt for .. a couple days. Trust me!"
|
__________________
Daniel Ritchie
Saintfield, Northern Ireland - Queen's University, Belfast:History/Politics
Member of Dromara Reformed Presbyterian Church of Ireland (Covenanter)
|
12-18-2007, 08:34 PM
| | "da wabbit" | | Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: CentralLakeMI
Posts: 3,928
Thanks: 12
Thanked 1,189 Times in 449 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by RRHeustisJr Quote:
Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum
How about Gal 3:28?
"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."
| Exactly.
But, does this mean that females were not part of the Covenant in the Old, but now they are, according to Paedobaptist theology? If Galatians 3:28 is used to bolster Paedobaptism, then are we to believe that females were treated just like the Greek in the Old, which is why females (and Greeks) were not circumcised? | No, we would say that they were not fully incorporated in the external rites. We would say that they were fully incorporated in the substance of the covenant (since we believe it was part of the covenant of grace, and not that it was two covenants--one inward by faith, another outward and purely of the flesh); but they were not included in all elements of the administration. They were not circumcised, they were not commanded to the feasts. On the other hand, she could be a Nazarite, or a singer (Ex. 2:65, Neh. 7:67), etc.
__________________ Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI Made both Lord and Christ--Jesus, the Destroyer
Acts 2:36 - 1 Cor. 10:9-10 & 15:22-26 - Hebrews 2:9-15 - 1 John 3:8 - James 4:12
When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind: | |
